Armenia

The current article aims at studying the elements of continuity and change in Iran’s foreign policy toward the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis during Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hassan Rouhani’s administrations. It tries to answer the question as to which factors have contributed to continuity and change in Iran's foreign policy toward the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis between 1997 and 2018? The article shows that although the principles of Iran’s foreign policy toward the South Caucasus and the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis have not changed during this period, the changing role of the external powers – Russia and the West – as well as different foreign policy priorities defined by the three administrations, have caused changes in Iran's approach to this issue. An inductive approach and a qualitative research method has been used in this article. Official documents, news and research articles have been used as the main sources of data in this article.

In first half of the third century Armenia was much more than an independent buffer state with no wider cultural context, simply placed between two superpowers of the era – Iran and Rome. The idea of the Iranian character of Arsacid’s Armenia should be accepted without further doubts. Political situation of the kingdom changed with taking over the power in Iran by the Persian Dynasty of the Sasanians. Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān utilised the weakening of the Arsacids and stood up against the Parthian dynasty. After defeating Ardawān IV in 224 he declared himself the šāhānšāh of Iran. One of the directions of the military actions of the founder of the new dynasty was an attack against the kingdom of Armenia which was , at the time, ruled by the last branch of the Arsacid royal house and became the last resort of resistance against new authority. Research literature usually limits the problem of early wars with Armenia to information that probably in the late 220s, Ardaxšīr attacked Armenia. Occasionally, the topic is tackled as historical context of the relief from Salmās in Ādurbādagān. An interesting hypothesis based on the interpretation of the Salmās relief was put forward by Eshan Shavarebi, who assumes that between 240 and 242 there may have been an agreement between Ardaxšīr and the Armenians. However, it seems that this hypothesis is built on too fragile foundations. The main motive of the initial actions of the first Sasanian ruler was an attempt to remove the opposition associated with the Parthian dynasty. This motive may be observed in context of Ardaxšīr’s military actions towards Arabic city of Ḥaṭrā.

Art and literature have always been applied as a favorite way of conveying human experiences through centuries to next generations. However, sometimes they have been not used as art for art’s sake. Utilitarian literature and art have usually been abused to misrepresent facts and real human history. World War I was a catastrophic disaster for the whole world, especially for the Muslim people living in the Ottoman empire territory and neighboring regions. Since then the separated small countries have been suffering periodical catastrophes afterword. Literature and art, consequently, were affected by them. According to the attitude of the literary figures and artists toward those historical experiences and human sufferings, their productions have tried to be effective on the world’s attitude toward those events. Ararat is one of them. It is an Armenian movie that was produced in Canada and won 2003’s Canadian Film Festival first prize. The main character of this movie is an Armenian young boy who travels to the city of Van in Türkiye and remember his nation’s past experiences during World War I in the city, according to the producers’ point of view. The main episodes are the flashbacks to the war between Armenian people and Turkic troops in Van through which war crimes are depicted to arouse the audience’s hatred toward Turks in the world. The film producers have inefficiently tried to produce a show through which make the world believe that there has been a genocide by Turkic troops against Armenian people living in the region during World War I. While western world is trying to condemn all hate speeches toward other races, ethnicities and nations around the world, the production of such a film in a country which obviously declares herself as one the most democratic countries in the world does not seem so appropriate to their democratic slogans. Through this essay the researcher will try to analyze it and depict some facts that the producers have tried to misrepresent. Because it is a movie that has dealt with the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians living in the territory before World War I. 

Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbors and Rivals is more than just a history of wars; it opens new windows and challenges some of the most common views regarding Roman-Persian relations. By emphasizing Iranian sources, Beate Dignas and Engelbert Winter avoid reconstructing historical events from a Roman point of view and instead present a balanced outlook free of common anti-oriental prejudices. Their work covers a wide range of topics and explains how the Romans and Persians despite many wars attempted to secure their national interests via channels of negotiations and complex diplomacy. The Roman-Persian rivalry seems “modern” in many respects and this character of their relation is nicely demonstrated in this book.